The Next President?

Mind you I guess Obama will have most of the black and other ethnic minority votes sewn up on similar grounds  so it works both ways!
Click to expand...

Not a chance. The hispanics are showing signs that hell will freeze over before they vote for a president with any black heritage. Racially, there appears to be no love lost. Pity it comes down to that..


I wouldnt be at all suprised if the asian and jewish vote followed the same path too

His appeal has to get well beyond racially boundaries. And hes succeeded largely...which is good and quite an achievement
 
Here's another piece of analysis I found very interesting, from Janet Daley who was born American.
I find it hard to argue with the conclusion she arrives at.

American attitudes to 'liberalism'

By the way there was a long discussion today on another weblist I belong to, which has a predominantly American membership, explaining the meaning of 'Registered Voter' which is largely misunderstood by British journalists. It seems each State has its own rules governing registration, and whether you need to express a political preference when registering to vote in the primaries, and what this implies - which makes number-crunching and forward predicting quite complicated.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Feb 4 2008, 01:34 AM
Here's another piece of analysis I found very interesting, from Janet Daley who was born American.
I find it hard to argue with the conclusion she arrives at.

American attitudes to 'liberalism'
Click to expand...
Since when has Obama been in politics "for two years"?

Some of the articles from this side of the pond have been truly awful. Thank God for the internet.
 
He was first elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 I believe, which means he has been in politics for nearly 12 years.
 
Obama might not have "only been in politics for two years" (thats narrowing it down to the senate)



And even then it's still wrong.
Click to expand...


Its a month over three years. Still an issue.
 
I find this 'Hillary has the experience' tagline somewhat baffling, especially comparatively with Obama. If experience and organisation and economic completion were the criteria then Romney should win.
 
Hillary has no more experience of running a war nor of running the world's biggest national economy than Obama
 
Not directly.......but

Either way, by being far more attuned to specific policy and issues rather than rhetoric, she will give a much greater impression of competence and experience

From what ive seen, its all been a bit waffling from Obama and when hes moved onto sepcifics on foreign policy for instance, hes been a bit exposed

Polls are tight but i i think he will be hit hard tomorrow.
 
Yep. I think Obama has built up an almost irresistible bandwagon against Clinton, who may panic if hit hard tomorrow in the Primaries, and say yet more things she might live to regret.

If as I believe Obama is the Democrat candidate, McCain will beat him on the experience issue.
 
This is all assuming the American people actually want experience. All Obama has to do is invoke the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "experience" card to remind people that it's not necessarily a good thing.

That said, as we stand now they'll have a choice of the first black, the first woman, the first Mormon or the umpteenth white-haired man come November.

If it were a horse race, you know who the trends guys would be backing.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Feb 3 2008, 02:48 PM
Revealing article on the Wall Street Journal "Who Was Hillary Clinton" on the couple's efforts to limit access to the records of their time at the White House [and earlier]:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/opinion.html
Click to expand...
Worth noting that that particular piece was an editorial from one of the most conservative editorial boards in America. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about Bill's correspondence with Hillary during the Lewinski affair (which, after all, is really what it's all about), though it would of course be hugely damaging to Hillary. To be honest, the whole "anyone but Hillary" campaign has always had more than a whiff of patheticness about to me.

An Cappall makes a good point about Hillary not having a vast amount more experience than Obama, but it's worth pointing out that it's Obama himself who has framed the "experience vs. change" debate every bit as much as Hillary.

Nothing will be decided on the Democratic side tommorrow night, though McCain could effectively end the Republican race as a contest tommorrow night. However, I have increasingly come to the view that Romney is very much alive in California, due to a number of factors that have just as much to do with McCain as they do Romney. I have availed of some of the 6/4 on the machine, which is too big IMO.
 
Originally posted by Headstrong@Feb 4 2008, 09:36 PM
Yep. I think Obama has built up an almost irresistible bandwagon against Clinton, who may panic if hit hard tomorrow in the Primaries, and say yet more things she might live to regret.
Click to expand...
What exactly is that based on, and what things are you implying that she already regrets?
 
She and esp her husband playing the race card, and trying to belittle Obama, before the Nevada primary.

Clivex, you posted up a link at that time to an article in the Times by Alice Miles, one of those boot-faced 'gesture politics' lefty feminists whose ideas belong in a Students Union. The article was pure 'Hillary propaganda' and full of lies. I'm appalled to see a once great paper like The Times publishing such drivel - pre Murdoch you'd never have read in it anything so puerile and ill-informed. But I digress.

Out of about 200++ comments on this utterly idiotic and disgraceful article - almost all of them from Americans - only about 15 support Alice Miles' defense of Clinton - or rather attack on Obama.

You then yesterday morning put up a link to a much more intelligent and penetrating piece by Daniel Finkelstein [also in The Times] which confirmed that the critical outcray against Miles was wholly justified - it is indeed the Clintons who are invoking the race card, and subtly too.

The following are typical and fairly random examples of reaction to Miles's article - I've read the lot:

<< This article is naive. Immature. Indeed close to teenagerish in its support and rose-tinted view of Hilary Clinton. If this writer thinks she is a feminist, I think a review of what that means is in order. >>

<< Regardless of who said what, this whole scene is pure Clintonesque political fighting. The Obama camp should be very careful. The Clinton's want the Whitehouse again, and they will fight every inch of the way. They are very shrewd and tough.The Clinton's are not going to go away, though I wish they would. >>

<< I am incensed by this ridiculous article, which spectacularly overlooks the dirty tricks of the Clinton camp in October 2007 (well before this writer's journalistic clock for the US elections began ticking). The Clinton camp has repeatedly smeared Obama as a "muslim" trained in "madrassas", distorted his words about the type of foreign policy action he would take in Pakistan, and often taken the high ground despite their deluge of condescension about his apparent lack of experience. >>

<< Well, Mrs. Miles I sure am glad that you don't get to vote in the elections of my country. I, on the other hand, do. Your analisys is completely one sided. There is no 'race' card being played. It is very clear that the comment from Hillary made it seem like the actions of Pres. Johnson were far more valuable than those from MLK. I don't know if that was rasist,, but certainly dumb. If anybody has 'detestable dirty tricks' it's the Clintons. Analyse their political history. >>

<< I'd say the writer is a Clinton surrogate. She clearly has not watched events unfold. When Hillary Clinton tried to attack Barack Obama's message of hope by alluding that dreamers never accomplish anything, and in the same breath comparing LBJ (who, by the way, Hillary Rodham did not campaign for. If you check your facts, in '64 she was campaigning for Goldwater, the only Republican to vote against the Civil Rights Act) to MLK, it was her own supporters who questioned her choice of words. Her remark was so knee-jerk and so downright WRONG (I was in Mississippi in '64 and can tell you a few things about who did what and what went down - where were you?), it turned off even many of her core supporters - middle aged white women like me. So what does she do? Accused Obama of starting it, then unleashed her hit squad of character assassins. Obama extended the olive branch an hour before Clinton accepted it. >>

<< You couldn't be further from the real story. Obama's camp had absolutely NOTHING to do with the race controversy. He has, from day one, steered very far from the issue. Hillary, her husband, and her surrogates all made these comments and Obama had nothing to do with what came out of their mouths. Their remarks were incredibly insensitive and the fact that she is trying to blame it on Obama's camp is laughable. The American public is not that stupid - but apparently some of the British journalists are >>

<< Perhaps everyone has missed the fact that senator Obama have AVOIDED playing the race card. It is the Clintons who keep bringing it up with phrases like "he's no Dr. King" or Latinos wouldn't vote for a black president". I am amazed people aren't paying close attention to the Clintons constantly changing stance. Why yesterday they filed a lawsuit challenging a Las Vegas structure they put in place when they though Hillary would win. Obama is dammned if he fights back and dammned if he doesn't. As a young American I am tired of the Clintons. Mr. Obama has more elected experiance than Ms. Clinton. I believe strongly in His dream for America. Down with entitlement and up with hope. >>
 
Originally posted by trackside528+Feb 5 2008, 02:06 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (trackside528 @ Feb 5 2008, 02:06 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Headstrong@Feb 3 2008, 02:48 PM
Revealing article on the Wall Street Journal "Who Was Hillary Clinton" on the couple's efforts to limit access to the records of their time at the White House [and earlier]:
http://online.wsj.com/public/page/opinion.html
Click to expand...
Worth noting that that particular piece was an editorial from one of the most conservative editorial boards in America. Personally, I don't give a rats ass about Bill's correspondence with Hillary during the Lewinski affair [/b][/quote]
There's an awful lot more dodgy stuff relative to the Clintons than the Lewinsky affair. Paula Jones, various property deals, suborning of witnesses, accusations of murder........ I truly believe the Clintons are a pair of uttterly ruthless powermongers steeped in corruption, and if they get back into power it will be a dark day for America.
 
Bloody hell...you dont like them much do you?

it is indeed the Clintons who are invoking the race card, and subtly too.
Click to expand...

Definately true. They are not exactly shouting "LOOK AT ZIMBAWBWE!" but it is there.

All Obama has to do is invoke the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld "experience" card to remind people that it's not necessarily a good thing.
Click to expand...

To which the response would be "look at where simple minded rhetoric gets you". I think that Bush administration is probably rightly perceived as being a bit lazy minded and poor on detail (the post invasion planning in Iraq was the bisggest disgrace of the presidency). Clinton presents herself as a strong detail person who has clearly thought through most issues.
 
Originally posted by Gareth Flynn@Feb 5 2008, 01:21 AM


If it were a horse race, you know who the trends guys would be backing.
Click to expand...
Obama poor chance on trends and ratings.
He is the BJK of this election.
 
Whilst flicking through the pub paper, (the Express) I caught their take on the Republican battle, and their explanation for the McCain bandwagon.

Romney and Huckerbee were splitting the left wing vote :eek: :laughing:
 
Texas is starting to look critical, and with wins in Georgia and Alabama, possibly to be followed by Louisiana on Saturday, it might be that Obama is getting through in the deep South more than Hillary. She should pick up DC, Maryland and Virginia I'd have thought? Certainly the first two, as the North Eastern seaboard and California would be naturally leaning towards the more urbane establishment democrat. She's managed to strike a little thread through the central south too, drawing on the Arkansas link but probably an age demographic I'd have thought. This is going to be critical to any presidential run as it's these states and Florida that will swing things.

Nebraska and Washington state could go either way I'd have thought? Mind you, as I type all this pontification, I should conceed I haven't seen any polls, so am going purely on gut instinct, laced with Warblers warped view of America. It might very well be that there's substantial leads for Clinton in states I thought were marginal, but Obama has proven very adept at eating into decent polls leads in the 2 or 3 days before voting, and he still seems to be chiming with the undecided's better than her. I'm not so sure that she's got that many natural states of any substance left to her. Alright she'll get Vermont and Rhode Island, but a win in Hawaii for Obama would wipe them out.

Obama is doing better in deep Republican states, but come November support in these places will be of little consequence to the Democrats. My God, Texas didn't even vote for one of their own in LBJ, which was a landslide sympathy vote on the back of the assassination. If they can't bring themselves to vote for a Texan democratic President, there's no way they'll vote for a women or a black man from the outside

I'd expect Obama to win Wisconsin as he seems to be building a bit of a cluster in the traditional industrial areas, but the state is a funny one, with some deep rooted conservative traditions in the North, notably on things like guns, but the gun lobby hate Clinton.

Which means that its probably going to come down to Pennsylvania and Ohio. Very close. Despite what the British media are saying, I'm far from convinced that it isn't actually advantage Obama at this stage.
 
Huckabee got five States :what: I don`t beleive in God, but if i did i`d put down Katrina and the current Tornados they`re having down to him being pissed off with the ###### the so called Christian Conservatives get up to all in his name.
 
Back
Top